Hudibras wrote: > Postfix and Exim are two great mail servers, but I still do prefer > qmail, because (and it's only my opinion) is much better in most cases. > qmail version is the same from 1998, and it does not need any more; but > there are many people around helping and making "add-ons", making it > more powerful and never, never, never has a security hole or anything > like these. > However, sendmail or postfix really have holes... or is that not true? > Er, sendmail has a long history of exploits, postfix none. FWIW postfix was designed as a secure, high performance drop-in replacement for sendmail, so things like the "sendmail" compatibility command work as expected.
We were a sendmail shop for years, and looked at other MTAs, always looking for the optimum setup. We looked at qmail, and found a few things we didn't like. It was so starkly different from sendmail that we'd have a lot of work to do to adapt our scripts etc to it, and there would be a learning curve for our admins. Also there were some technical details we didn't like - mail queue files were referenced by inode number, so if we ever had to recover from a disaster, guess what? different inode numbers, and we're hosed. Also, we had thousands of aliases and redirects which change daily - postfix and sendmail easily handle this, but qmail seemed a bit more awkward to configure. In any case, we settled on postfix, and found it to be essentially sendmail on steroids for the most part - much lower demand on system resources, very flexible and fast, and no more security alerts. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
